To debate with someone who does not recognise that they possess underlying priors of set A, but instead continue making assumptions and arguments based on these priors as if they were just simply reality is to not really have a debate. Unless both parties can come to agreement as to the priors they bring to the debate, and what these entail for the words and concepts they employ, no civilized discourse can occur.
This brings us to neoreaction and zeroethsposition’s article again. Zerothposition can clearly be seen through his blog to be utterly clear about his priors. They are clearly libertarian. He seems to be influence by Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe among others, and this is all basically within the Lockean sphere. A discussion with such a thinker is possible, even if it is in disagreement. It can simply be pointed out that these priors are deemed false from position X, rendering further discussion civilised as long as both parties are aware of these differing stances. For example, I rejected Lockean anthropology for being a rhetorical device based on no observable reality which he (Locke) never tried to support by example. I hold it is quite absurd, and I consider all further attempts to provide arguments to support the concept of a pre-societal man of the state of nature variety to be failed in every possible. It would be interesting to conduct an investigation of previous occasions in which such an anarchistic interpretation occurred, and the status and position of those who brought it forward, as Filmer provides some examples from antiquity of this bizarre contraption.
As for neoreaction, there is no possibility to hold any kind of civilised debate, anymore than there is to hold such a debate with a representative of the Alt-Right until they A) acknowledge that their priors are derived from Locke ultimately, rendering them part of the liberal superstructure (something McIntyre calls Modern Liberal Individualism) B) examine the logicality and robustness of their assertions.
For example, we can take a number of neoreactionary thinkers and look at A and B briefly. We can begin with Jim as a good starting point. Jim would likely possibly admit his Lockean basis, but this isn’t at all clear. He may even look at examining the logicality of his assertions with regard to this, but so far has not. There are a number of occasions when he has made it clear he considers governance optional, which is precisely Locke’s position based on the state of nature. He has then advocated patriarchy quite in contradiction to this. If governance is not necessary, and people are therefore capable of living in anarchistic conditions, then at what point do women and children become in need of being put under patriarchcal stewardship? Is this to be a male only anarchy? At what point does the man become capable of anarchy? You cannot extricate the state of nature rhetorical device and anarchism from the rejection of governance. The only way to “achieve” this in any sense is to simply apply unprincipled exceptions to anarchism, which is precisely what he is doing. Men are exempt from state of nature because X, so are group Y and Group Z etc.
We also have Ryan Landry. He often writes for Social Matter, and it is exceptionally clear he has this same collection of priors. It is littered all over his writing. For example, in his article Amerikansky Zones we have the following:
“The Amerikanskiy Zone will enjoy the protection of Russian state forces and protective nuclear umbrella and comply with Russian federal taxation, but all internal policies will be determined by the political asylum seekers–with transitional guidance from Kremlin representatives”
What is assumed under this? Frankly democracy and libertarianism, and Lockean anarchistic anthropology. This in effect is a variant of multi-culturalism with evident self-determination of peoples as per Wilsonianism, which again is just Lockean anarchism.
From another article Unrestricted Warfare, If You Can Fund It we again see this evident anthropology with discussion of weaponised individuals. The figure of Land also makes an appearance with the reference to X-Risk Democratization. This entire article rests on an anthropology which is directly linked to the very same anthropology which zerothposition explicitly acknowledges: the sovereign individuals capable of acting independently and without support of power already in place. Land is quite clear on his position; others refuse to acknowledge that they hold the same position on this.
Next up we have Thomas Barghest who in his article Techno-Commercialism and Markets in Morality lays out a rabid liberal conception of markets in everything with morality and ethics reduced to markets. If I have to outline how this is liberal from the top to the bottom, then maybe we have a serious problem.
Another author pushing this same anthropology and sea of liberal assumptions is Mark Citadel, whom I have previously covered. In his post Individualism? Collectivism? Soboernost! We see blatent Hobbesian/ Lockean theory dressed up in Russian garb.
Now these particular writers are not being picked on specifically, I think pretty much most neoreactionaries fall under the same umbrella, it’s just that most stick largely to negative criticisms of current society, and thus haven’t exposed their underlying priors, but they can probably be located with more review of their writing. But on a more general level, one only has to look at the maintenance of concepts such as exit (a weaponised right secured by the individual,) the trike (a assertion of the lack of doctrine and the acceptance of mainstream anthropology under all three prongs,) nationalism (locke pure and simple,) the weaponisable sovereign individual, democracy, or any other number of incoherent concepts. Try reading the week in reaction and making sense of neoreation.
It is in effect a sub set of the Alt-Right, which like with the example of Vox Day, Spencer et al contains no one with the intention to examine the underlying principles which are just reality obviously. I mean, tell me Spencer and Vox day and the rest aren’t just crappy Locke and liberalism at 3rd hand.